Mr. Speaker, Red Deer airport has local support for airport improvements. It has provincial support. It even has $1 million committed by a commercial airline carrier that wishes to start scheduled service.

How can the government justify denying federal help to Red Deer, while handing out $5.3 million to a rarely used airport at Charlevoix?

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should know that Transport Canada has divested a lot of airports over the last number of years and is not involved in the daily operation.

We do have ACAP funding which provides for certain safety measures and we have spent nearly $5 billion on various improvements over the years. However, regional development agencies are entitled for regional variations to make certain investments and that is what is done from time to time.

Claude DrouinLiberalSecretary of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec)

Mr. Speaker, what the hon. member needs to know is that it is not a one-third-one-third-one-third program; it is a program of Economic Development Canada within the program of strategic infrastructure for regional development, in areas where tourism-related development is very important and 30% of employment is related to tourism. Le Manoir and the casino were important elements to which we contributed in order to help provide employment for the people.

Yesterday the Prime Minister rightly expressed concern about what had happened to Maher Arar. He pointed the finger at the fact that it was the Americans who actually deported him, yet there remain many unanswered questions with respect to the Canadian role. Did the Americans consult the Canadian government as to whether or not they should deport him to Syria? If they did, what did Canada say? If they did not, what does that say about our relations?

I ask the Prime Minister, is he not willing today on his last day in the House of Commons as Prime Minister to do the right thing and initiate an adequate inquiry into what exactly happened and what the Canadian role was in this particular incident?

Mr. Speaker, I said yesterday that this deportation was done by the American government and we were not involved.

One official said that they had received advice from the Canadian government. The Minister of Foreign Affairs asked his counterpart who had said so to reveal the name and the information they have about the so-called Canadian participation. We are not to start an inquiry in Canada about something that has been done in the United States, having no facts to justify an inquiry.

If things come from the Americans that demand that we look further, of course we will look at what can be done. Accordingly, at this moment--

Mr. Speaker, in my last question ever to the Prime Minister, I would ask him in his answer not to abdicate to the Americans the responsibility for sorting out what happened. Why are we asking the Americans what Canadians did? Why can we not find that out for ourselves, either as the government or through an inquiry?

Would the Prime Minister use this last opportunity to finally give an answer I might be happy with and say that he will do something about this, that he will have the appropriate inquiry? Let Canadians find out what Canadians did. Let us not depend on Americans to tell us what happened.

Mr. Speaker, I like to be nice. It is not that I do not want to be nice.

I know one thing, when we have inquiries of this nature a lot of expenditures are incurred. If there is no Canadian, it cannot be justified. He cannot name one person on the Canadian side who is responsible for anything. We checked with all the departments. We could not find anything. The only accusation came by a statement from the secretary of state of the United States who said that Canadians were involved. It is in my judgment his responsibility to say so.

If there was no Canadian involved, this is not the time to have a fishing expedition.

Mr. Speaker, hopefully the Arar case will not become a black mark in Canadian history. The way this man was treated goes against basic human rights. Canada's reputation is at stake. Canada is known around the world as the protector of human rights.

Mr. Arar's family and friends, the Liberal backbench, and the opposition are unified in calling for a full public inquiry.

My question is for the Prime Minister. To clear the air, why will the government not hold a full public inquiry?

Mr. Speaker, in fact, we are taking this issue very seriously. The commission for public complaints, on the original allegations raised by members opposite and others, is doing its review under authority granted to it by Parliament.

We are moving ahead and the member opposite should not be portraying otherwise.

Mr. Speaker, that leads me to ask another question. What is the value of Canadian citizenship?

Citizens of Canada must be assured that the government will do everything possible to protect them if they are detained in another country. Now we hear of Abdullah Almalki, another Canadian, who is imprisoned in Syria without charges.

When will the Liberal government come to the aid of another detained Canadian?

Mr. Speaker, we must be dreaming. The Canadian government is holding the U.S. government to account for information provided to it by Canadian sources, which led to the deportation of a Canadian, Maher Arar, to Syria.

Does the Prime Minister not find it odd to ask the U.S. administration to reveal who, in Canada, provided it with information? Is it not up to his government to tell us?

Mr. Speaker, all the members of this House want to know the truth behind what happened. The Attorney General has launched an investigation into this deportation in an attempt to get answers. In the meantime, the Prime Minister has quite reasonably asked me to ask our American friends, who allegedly received some information, whether they could help us in this investigation. This is entirely reasonable. It is in line with the cooperation we have always enjoyed with the United States. I believe this is a reasonable measure, and completely acceptable under the circumstances.

Mr. Speaker, many have said that the current investigation will not uncover the truth, hence the need to turn to the Americans.

Will the Prime Minister admit that the reason everyone is able to shirk their responsibilities in this case, as they did with Bill Sampson, is because the government is refusing to hold a public inquiry for fear of finding out the whole truth?

Mr. Speaker, first and foremost, we operate on the presumption of innocence in this country and I think that should be stated.

Second, the commission has a lot of authority at its discretion in terms of doing its investigation, given to it by Parliament for this specific purpose. We want to get to the bottom of this issue and the CPC is looking into those allegations so we can see where the problem was.

Mr. Speaker, the new Liberal leader has a program that talks about $62.5 billion of debt reduction. There are two ways he can do that. He can lower services even more and he can raise taxes even higher.

My question for the finance minister, has the new Liberal leader talked with him about the way he is going to come up with this $62.5 billion?

Mr. Speaker, maybe the minister could take the figures of the Auditor General seriously, $100 million for fat cat cabinet jets and $1 million for the long gun registry. Maybe he could pay attention to those figures.

The new Liberal leader has also talked about $34 billion of increased spending. So I ask the same question, has he confirmed with the finance minister where that money will come from? There is only one taxpayer in Canada.

Mr. Speaker, again, I do not take his estimate of any costs seriously.

When he makes these exaggerated claims about the cost of programs, he undermines any credibility he might have had otherwise.

In the meantime, the record of our government has been that we have paid down sufficient debt that we have actually freed up $3 billion in funds that were otherwise going to be spent paying interest costs to be used in other programs. That is a good record.

Mr. Speaker, on the issue of BioChem Pharma, the Minister of Industry has all the tools he needs to negotiate with Shire and revitalize this distinguished research laboratory.

With every passing day, the project's survival is threatened. Does the Minister of Industry intend to take advantage of today's meeting with Shire to ensure that BioChem Pharma's revitalization project can start up quickly?

Mr. Speaker, this matter is extremely important to me. My sole concern is ensuring that Canada's interests are protected, that jobs and investments in Canada and Quebec are protected and that Shire's commitments are honoured.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Industry must realize that Quebec stands to lose a great deal of expertise and that time is of the essence in such matters.

We agree that Shire must honour its commitments, but can the Minister of Industry guarantee that he intends to act with due diligence to prevent Quebec from losing these researchers, who are its pride and joy?